User talk:Bilrow
Vandalism to your articles The vandalism to your articles has been reverted. If this happens again please report vandalsim so the vandals may be banned. Cheers! J Andres 03:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC) :Again, I had to revert vandalism on Bilrow's page. Ugh! --Jerdge 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC). *I also just cleared vandalism from Bilrow's page... --Franklin2 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) It would appear he does deserve the vandalism though. However, vandalism is not allowed. Tricause 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Your page's history Just to let you know I just deleted the part of your page's history that had your personal info in it. Lol pie 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Alleged Vandalism Why do you continue to remove my posts and alter the points I have added? had I added simple baseless messages such as 'GGA sukz lol!!1!' or had directly insulted the alliance leaders then I would easily be able to understand this. All I have added is a small number of changes to the outcomes of the wars, noting that the Great War is disputed (I widely accepted fact) the GATO-1V war’s disputed status (reasons as to why noted on the actual page of the war) and that the InFANtile war is ongoing (to my knowledge FAN has not accepted defeat and surrendered, nor has One Vision given up attempting to wipe them out. As such how can the war have ended?) --Jinman 08:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :In relation to your new medal, you never fought vandalism. All you did is merely label the argument of another wiki member as such and refused to listen to their points as to why, furthermore you have still refused to answer my question listed above. --Jinman ::I ask you once again. Make points as to why my actions are vandalism. All you edited out was the point that two of the wars could be regarded as being disputed and another is ongoing. How can you have earned such a medal when you have not fought vandalism in any way, shape or form but have instead attempted repeatedly to remove facts which you disagree with from pages. ::If you are so incapable of arguing your points for yourself and making arguments against my own, then please appoint someone to do so for you. For I have made my argument based upon logic and fact, and you know as well as I that I have evidence to this, thus at the moment the argument is in my favor. --Jinman 07:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC) In relation to your new medal, you never fought vandalism. All you did is merely label the argument of another wiki member as such and refused to listen to their points as to why, furthermore you have still refused to answer my question listed above. --Jinman Bilrow did no such thing. The medal was award to him by me for the history of vandalism that he has had to put up with. There have been some truly disgusting things edited into his wiki (which you can see for yourself if you bother to look at the revision history), thus I am aknowledging his work and effort here. No one ever said anything about it being an "Anti-Jinman" medal - only you jumped to the conclusion that it was. Imperial Empire 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC) :Thank you for at long last giving some form of responce to my queries/ :‘Jumping’ to such a conclusion was inevitable due to the refusal of this member to give any answers, the rather persistent edits of my attempts to correct the information across several pages (namely GGA) and labeling them as simply vandalism, followed shortly by the fact that in very quick succession he uploaded the medal himself and added it to his current list of different ones. :Also considering his place within the NPO hierarchy, and his previous apparent ‘self awards’ in which he personally uploaded other medals to himself I do not believe that it is hard to understand me reasoning in this matter, furthered only by his refusal to speak. :I am well aware of the persistent edits of 75.172.52.50, which took place over a month before this was uploaded, but if he has had some ‘truly disgusting things edited into his wiki’ (By this I assume you refer to the aid pun) when why did you wait over a month to award him this? and why do you simply not request a lock for the page as you did with the MCNPO page? if these attempts of vandalism he has 'had to endure' are so much of a problem then surely it would be easier simply to remove their capability to edit. --Jinman 06:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC) I am unsure of what other "self awards" you speak of. If I were to upload a medal or award given to me by another member of the NPO (or other alliance), then it would not automatically make it a "self award". In the Ribbon Bar Bilrow has 4 awards from other alliances or myself, plus his war ribbons which are automatically granted if you serve in a war - none of which are "self awards". I do not see what the hierarchy business has to do with it either, what if Bilrow wasn't in MilCom? If you mean the GGA medals, then I believe that they automatically get awards for different things like wars, time in alliance, etc. While yes, I do see where you are coming from, I still feel you should not have done as you did. For the record, I never made a "request" to get the MilCom page protected. I reported the IP for vandalism as was standard - looking at records of IP reports from the past I was under the assumption that you were going to get a verbal warning, the Admin then choose to block your IP and protect the page. Bilrow hasn't expressed a desire to have the page protected and futher, there is nothing stopping these people from creating an account with a false name and no contact details which would enable to them to get around the semi-lock and continue as they do. In regards to "waiting a month" to give Bilrow an award (for the record, others got awards to), I have not been in charge of the wiki department for a long period of time. Secondly I wanted to wait before I made any announcement about anything until the wiki team was functioning at good level of activity, thirdly the award announcement was integrated into an overall announcement for the Body Republic which took some time to write and fine tune and was only announced recently. Imperial Empire 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)